About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 21
CSPAN2 15
FOXNEWS 11
MSNBC 5
MSNBCW 5
CNN 4
CNNW 4
KNTV (NBC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
WRC 2
LANGUAGE
English 82
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 82 (some duplicates have been removed)
and reconstruction in afghanistan. the great majority of which has been channeled through private contractors. we know from experience in bosnia in the 1990's and more recently in iraq that a reduction in troop levels as not mean a drop in contractor activity. in some cases, it is a matter of increase. there has been increase reliance on contractors to fulfill the logistical roles once performed by the military in those instances. eventually, the contractor presence will also decrease as we move support of large-scale off-budget scanned it -- spending to more direct to the afghan government directly. this is why our reconstruction strategy must focus on insuring that afghans can sustain what we have helped build. how many additional schools and health, as we can construct, but also that there are teachers and health care officials to sustain those institutions. whether afghans have the resources and expertise to manage the long-term operation and maintenance of power plants. on a related note, as we encourage more contracting with local afghan firms under the afghan first policy, we must consider
of this year and removing the rest of the 33,000 u.s. search wars from afghanistan by the end of the summer in 2012. these reductions are part of an ongoing process of transitioning increasing responsibility for afghanistan security, the afghan security forces, which by 2014 would have leader was on stability for security throughout the country. the chorus which the company says provides a strategy for success in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have increased by almost 100,000 since the president announced the surge in december december 2009.afghan army will expand by another 70,000 security forces by the time all of the u.s. surge forces are brought home by september of 2012. the growing capabilities of the afghan security forces provide the afghan people would want melter of afghan elders have asked eunice and told me that they want the most, which is the ability to secure their own country themselves. having ask you forces in the lead puts the lie to the taliban propaganda that international forces are there to occupy afghanistan. the afghans taken over their own security is the
in afghanistan. the pentagon says funds from a $2.1 billion trucking contract to get supplies to american troops were funneled to the militants. a pentagon spokesman says a new contract will be awarded and applicants will be more thoroughly vetted. >>> we have an update tonight on the u.s. government law enforcement initiative that allowed guns to fall into the hands of mexican criminals. we have an exclusive report on some of the buyers in operation fast and furious. >> it's a lot of guns. that was the first thing that came into mind. >> this attorney represents manuel acosta, the man accused of recruiting 19 straw buyers later indicted for smuggling guns to mexico. >> they walk into a store, fill out a form, they buy a couple of rifles and walk out and give it to the guy. he gives them a few hundred bucks. >> to purchase a gun every buyer fills out this form. it asks, have you ever been indicted for a felony, been charged with a crime that allows for a year in jail? are you subject to a restraining order? the gun stores forwards that to the fbi, which then approves, denies or delays the purcha
the threat of default or downgrade. >> ron insana there. meanwhile, u.s. troops in afghanistan are worried they may not get paid because of this debt showdown in washington. gener good saturday morning to you, atia. so what was this meeting with the troops like? >> reporter: good morning, alex. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, made his way down to the southern part of afghanistan, the most volatile part in the country. his number one question from the soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines wasn't necessarily about the military strategy but it was, will we get paid. and his response was, i actually don't know the answer to that question. i have confidence that at some point in time whatever compensation you are owed you will be given. obviously the americans here in afghanistan, very worried about what's going on in washington. many of these men and women haven't seen their families for several months. many won't see them for a full year and they're wondering if those family members are going to be getting those paychecks. they're risking their lives here in afghani
back the wars in iraq and afghanistan. what's notable about this, it doesn't include any new revenues through taxes. as you know, the white house has been fighting for this for weeks and now under senator reid's plan there are no new revenues through tax reform. the president has come out and said schae ports senator reid's plan. he says it is a reasonable approach but we're still deadlocked just eight days out. >> thank you, kristen. >>> and serving on the budget committee. good afternoon, senator. >> good afternoon, dylan. thanks for a chance to be he. >> thanks for joining us. insight what you think this deal ends up looking like? >> well i think a number of us are disappoint we're not going to do the bigger deal that the president and leader reid have been pressing for that a number of us republicans and democrats in the senate pressed for. i view leader reid's offer as a last-ditch effort to avoid default. my hope is that republicans can hear us saying, yes. it's a deal that doesn't touch medicare, medicaid, social security or include revenue increases. hits the $2.7 trillion tar
services and a surge of combat vets from the iraq and afghanistan wars entering the system, the demand for v.a. health care services has increased dramatically in recent years. this bill provides $58.6 billion for v.a. discretionary funding, $2.3 billion over current funding. the bill also includes $52.5 billion in fy 2013 advanced appropriations for vets' medical care. one of the very few areas in which this bill provides an increase in funding is v.a. medical research, which is $72 million over the budget request to restore funding to the current level. with little room to maneuver on the v.a. side of the ledger, the vast majority of the savings in the bill comes from incrementing or defunding certain military construction projects. the bill provides $13.7 billion for military construction, $1 billion below the request. the milcon reductions in the bill are restricted to the active-duty components. the guard and reserve components, family housing, barrack and other accounts are fully funded at the president's request. every military construction project funded in this bill is authori
be the most egregious example to date of widespread corruption in afghanistan. american taxpayer money, hundreds of millions of dollars, ending up in the hands of the taliban. a year-long u.s. military task force discovered that the money was siphoned from a $2 billion transportation contract to provide most of the supplies to american troops. a source with knowledge of the investigation has briefed cnn about how it all went down. we are joined now from the afghan capital, kabul. just tell us briefly, how did this happen? >> reporter: this is coming from an internal report, but basically what happened was trucking companies subcontracted out to local entities here, who then in turn subcontracted out to even more local providers. what happened was it turns out that some of those local, more local firms actually had some ties to nefarious elements, including the taliban. what we see here is a bulk of the transportation costs being filtered through some of these trucking companies and part of that money is actually ending up in the hands of the very individuals who are fighting nato force
savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. these are real savings that cbo scores at about $1 trillion. we know that some republicans will quibble over these savings but they have no leg to stand on. but wars are the second biggest policy driver of our deficits after the bush tax cut for the conduct and the worst ads to our debt, to is undeniable that winding down the war's delivers savings. the administration tells us with the wind down, they can't prosecute -- they can count on billions of dollars over the next decade the cbo count $1.67 trillion. we know the republicans agree theythis mstath because included the same settings in the ryan budget that passed the house. they never criticized that accounting and it is hard to see how they could do so now. lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve deeper savings down the road. all in all, this is an offer that republicans cannot refuse. all of the cuts in center repots proposal have been supported at one point or another by republicans. if they refuse this offer, i
away from capitol hill, the economy and debt crisis are weighing heavily on u.s. troops in afghanistan. the top question on their minds saturday, even as bombings rocked the city around them, was the top u.s. military officer couldn't answer. will we get paid? these are soldiers in afghanistan with the bombs bursting around them. here's what the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, and i quote, "i honestly don't know the answer to that question." admiral mike mcmullin responded, statement telling them to work each day to defend this country. wearing the uniform, listening to bombs go off around them. that is why today what is referred to in the press as real people. i guess we're not. we have students like laura and sidney. we have veterans like bill and roger and carlos and ariana who is a senior. guerm who is a senior. felicia is a senior. alyssa is a senior. they are here representing the millions of people around this country who are as frayed of the soldiers on the frontline in afghanistan. we don't have more delaying tactics? we need to get to the business of hand. we have
will spend about $150 billion a year on the wars in iraq and afghanistan. nobody believes or hopes that will happen. it has not been requested by the president. no one intends to spend that money. in fact, the president's own budget assumes that instead of the $1.7 trillion that would be over the next decade, that instead we will spend about $600 billion. that's what the president's budget says. that's what people assume. this means that senator reid's proposal to take credit for cutting an additional $1.1 trillion that's not going to be spent anyway is not going to be viewed as a credible proposal. why? because it's money that's not planning to be spent. it's a little like a family saying let's assume we're going to take a vacation we're never nefer going to take and it's going to cost $10,000, and them saying we saved $10,000 on our basketball. i wish it weren't so. i wish the $1.1 trillion was credible spending reductions we could rely on but "the washington post," "the wall street journal," many other observers have looked at this and said frankly it's not meaning a meaningful
party support and served as a captain in the air force, including tours in afghanistan and iraq. congressman, welcome very much. >> thanks. >> happy to have you. and welcome to everyone. doris, sometimes satire can be the most damning in terms of summing up where we are. "the onion" newspaper has this headline this week -- "congress continues debate over whether or not nation should be economically ruined." if the question is whether washington is broken, make the case that the answer is yes. >> i think there's no question it's broken. you know, our country was created on the principle of compromise. think about it. the states versus the federal government, senate versus house, north versus south. and i remember once, one of the old framers was asked, what is the three principles of this new government you've created? well, the first is compromise, the second is compromise, the third is compromise. something's happened where compromise has become a terrible word in washington. it's partly because the parties have become more ideologically separated. henry clay was the great comp
is fighting two wars in afghanistan and iraq . they feel like the military is stretched. the house armed services committee said yesterday he was worried about breaking the armed forces and that is a grave concern for the republicans. >> of course, the speaker is counting heads. much more on this . ed henry is watching the goings on there for signs of progress . any proposed deal will have detractors. >> we heard about speaker john boehner and the problems with the tea party. the president may have trouble as well >> democrat leaderships huddled with nancy pelosi on capitol hill. top advisors found themselves on the fence. >> you are progressive. there is a powerful case for debt reduction. things like college loans and medical research and road construction. if we don't reduce the deficit, we'll not have room to do that. >> but a key liberal congressman is not beeing it. he released a blistering statement charging that the deal trades people's livelihood for unappeasable right-wing radicals and i will not support it. the arizona democrat said the party is at a cross road and this is a c
the president to wage war. we do so at a time when the united states is so engaged in wars in afghanistan and iraq and our national debt exceeds $14 trillion. in light of these circumstances and the lack of united states vital interests in in libya, i do not believe we should be intervening in a civil war there. american combat forces are so efficient at certain types of operations and are over the horizon technology is so potent that the use of the military instrument to right wrongs exists as a tremendous temptation for presidents. american intervention in libya did not come as a result of a disciplined assessment of our vital interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it
, that's clear, isn't it? so there he was, he was making his 15th trip to afghanistan and it was while he was over at camp leatherneck that the marines asked him, okay, if there are a bunch of pentagon cuts, how is that going to affect our equipment and stuff like that. and wherever he has gone so far during this particular swing through the country of afghanistan, the troops are saying are we going to get paid? and he's saying, i don't know. just know this whatever you are owed you'll get paid eventually. you know, and this is how this works down. if we do, talking about if we go into a debt ceiling where we can't pay our bills technically which i don't agree with anyway, let's say, the president has the tablt to decide who gets paid when. clearly the debt is going to get paid first. china and saudi arabia are paid before our military, as bad as that sounds, that has to happen, so our borrowing costs don't go through the roof and then pay the military and social security, and if you dodonn tt order, give the department of education money first, it's the president's fault. it's not congre
, reduced spending on the wars in afghanistan and iraq and through targeted cuts to mandatory spending. it doesn't raise taxes and it doesn't touch medicare, medicaid or social security. again, this is not a perfect plan. i have been on the floor many times in favor of a balanced package that includes cuts to spending, domestic, defense and mandatory, but also includes increased revenues. the reid princess plan doesn't e those goals -- the reid plan doesn't achieve those goals but i hope we will get there eventually. this is not a proposal i would have written, but i'm one of more than 100 members of the senate and more than 535 members of congress, and i don't get everything i want. none of us here in congress get everything we want. that's the nature of compromise. that's the nature of democracy, and that's why the framers of the constitution created checks and balances in government. that's why they created two chambers in congress and three branches of government, and when you're a leader in government, you just don't have the luxury of drawing a line in the sand and walking away.
afghanistan but they are over in the other places, somalia and arabian peninsula? >> that's right. actually this is a testament to bin laden's plan for the al qaeda network. he created a more diffuse network after the united states began to crack down on al qaeda in late 1990s. you saw rise of al qaeda in north africa and al shaback in east africa. al qaeda in iraq done great damage to u.s. forces. the taliban was once a government but relegated to affiliate movement of al qaeda. what you have a is number of organizations sort of franchises of al qaeda that continue to grow and thrive while we have focused in on the core as we called it. now i think after the death of bin laden in early may, i think we were able to get a lot of intelligence. we've gone after a lot of the other high-level officials within al qaeda and obviously this drone campaign been ongoing in pakistan and some cases yemen, we've taken out something like 1200 fighters from al qaeda including senior leaders. jon: right. >> this is all good news. but again the ideology of radical islam lives on and so do these affiliate gro
drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is ph
from the iraq and afghanistan wars are real. that's c.b.o. saying it. not some democrat who's hoping and praying for an easy fix. this completely undercuts the arguments by republicans who have tried to call these savings a gimmick, even though they included them in their own budget and voted for them only a few months ago. if it was knock their budget -- if it was okay in their budget, it's got to be okay in our budget. you can't just change your mind based on whose budget it is. the substance should matter to some extent. plus, since the c.b.o. will only measure the plan's first draft before aofficial plan savings were incorporated into the bill, the final version will achieve even deeper savings when it is filed on the floor. as "politico" reports this morning, "in the battle of budget scores, the senate democratic deficit-reduction bill is the clear winner thus far over an alternative by speaker john boehner." and lastly, senator reid's proposal allows for a joint committee that has the potential to achieve even deeper savings down the road to get our country back on the path to
. the reid plan says we won't be in iraq and afghanistan. that's $1 trillion. we'll have a commission. that will save us $$1 billion. those aren't real. >>> the problem you have is ideological purity. when you sit here and look at the congressional budget office, made it clear that if the bush tax cuts were not extended, all of them, deficit goes down. if you extend all of them, $3.3 trillion increase over ten years. that's fact will we won't sit here and debate a fact. it is a fact. and so on democratic side, it is crazy to sit here and say we have no issue with medicare, medicaid. no issue with social security. you have rising costs. at some point you cannot have people on the democratic side and the republican side say absolutely not. i'm not giving up anything. you have to be able to give up something. >> the republicans were willing, at least until recently. you heard john boehner, the speaker of the house saying he was willing for $800 billion in tax revenue. increases in taxes in effect. that's not ideological purity. >> right. could he sell that to his party? >> and at the end
. ♪ welcome back. american troops in afghanistan worried about how the debt talks standoff could impact their families with the deal doesn't happen by tuesday and federal employees stop getting paid. soldiers asked admiral mike mullen if they will still get their pay checks. he said honestly he just doesn't know what will happen. >>> mullen was meeting with service men and women at bases in southern afghanistan. >> but the money does seem to be flowing in iraq and in ways that are taking the american taxpayer for a ride. a new report by a special inspector shows that contractors are overbilling the government by as much as 12,000%. in one case a sub contractor charged the pentagon 900 bucks for a $7 switch. and the audit comes as violence in iraq is surging. steve centanni is live for us in washington. so steve, first, what about the allegations that iraq is not any safer than it was a year ago? >> well, heather, that is the claim of the inspector general for iraq reconstruction in a scathing report just released he says "iraq remains an extraordinarily dangerous place to work. it is le
al-qaeda move money and fighters in to pakistan and afghanistan. here now, a spokesman for four u.s. ambassadors. thanks for being with us. we known about their support of terror groups throughout the years, hezbollah and others but what about al-qaeda is this is the first time we've had solid evidence? >> it's actually not the first time. the four individuals that were designated in 2009. don't forget that the 9/11 commission report called out this phenomenon, said that al-qaeda and iran are working together. i think thursday's announcement is good news. we should congratulate david cohenfor making this announcement and pushing through this decision. i'm sure it was very difficult. the state department under secretary clinton has not been so forth right. hopefully by designating the six individuals that we can move the diplomacy and force a lost these countries that are protecting terrorists by not enforcing banking laws. certainly the u.n. has asked them to enforce banking laws. >> gregg: i'm glad you brought up the united nations. when it comes to fighting terrorism is the unit
savings on the mandatory side and savings from winding down the war in iraq and afghanistan. these are savings that cbo scores of about a trillion dollars, that cbo scoring them at a trillion dollars. now we know some republicans will quibble over the savings but they have no leg to stand on. though war is the second-biggest policy driver of the deficit after the bush tax cuts. if conducting the war ads to the debt, it is undeniable winding down the war deliver savings. the administration tells us with the wind down their putting in place in the iraq and afghanistan, they can prosecute the war on about $630 billion over the next decade. cbo, however, assumes 1.67 trillion in war funding for 2021. by adopting the administration's lower number, we can save over a trillion. we know the republicans agree with this because they included the exact same savings in the wrong and budget that passed the house. i never criticized such accounting then and it's hard to see how they could do so now. last, senator reid's proposal allows a joint committee that has the potential to achieve e
trillion. the ryan budget contained a $1 trillion in savings winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. majority leader kantor acknowledged the ryan budget counted toward deficit reduction. drawing down the troops would save more than $1 trillion over 10 years. we have given them everything they asked for. $2.70 trillion, dollar for dollar, there is no revenue. [unintelligible] in my caucus, somebody had an ipad and they read it today. the rating agencies are very nervous. there was a congressional hearing today. i do not have that, but the person testifying today said the one thing the markets demand is starting tond debate this thing again in a few weeks is not a certainty. [unintelligible] excellent question. we tried our best to have a trigger with some of the stuff that president obama worked on with republicans. they worked on the trigger. they could never get there because it would be so unfair if the committee did not arrive at a positive conclusion that the trigger would be all costs. that is really unfair. we cannot get from here to there after having already put to put $7 tr
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requ
misspent in iraq and afghanistan over a 10-year period. the "wall street journal" reporting they include $300 million for u.s. agency, agricultural development project with a "burn rate" of million dollars a day that paid afghan farmers to work in their own field, it covers subcontractors in eastern afghanistan, paying 20% of the contract to insurgents for protection and touches on cases where host government was unable to sustain a project like costly water treatment plant in iraq that produced murky water and lacked power and construction of afghan military economy that would cost $40 million to operate and maintain, far beyond what the afghan government could afford. 75% of the total contract dollars spent to support operations in iraq and afghanistan have gone to just 23 major contractors. the federal work force assigned to oversee the contracts hasn't grown in parallel with the massive growth of wartime expenditures. read more about that in the "wall street journal" this morning. one more tweet, if i can, just to finish off the discussion. adding this from darrell price, saying: an
're at war for 10 years, in afghanistan and iraq at surge levels. we assume we're going to be fighting this war for 10 more years, with over 100,000 troops in afghanistan and oh, gosh, wait, we're going to withdraw our troops in 2014. $1 trillion in savings. i've got a better idea. let's pass a bill to cover the moon with yogurt that will cost $5 trillion today. and then let's pass a bill the next day to cancel that bill. we could save $5 trillion. wait, i've got a better idea. our debt is $14 trillion. let's come up with a new plan to spend $14 trillion, then rescind it the next day and let's save $14 trillion. this stuff is fiscal fantasy. you can't make this stuff up, mr. speaker. suggesting that we're going to be in a war at these levels for 10 more years when everybody knows we've already decided not to do that, that does not get us $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. only in washington can you add up math like that. we need real spending cuts. i yield myself an additional minute to say, this is getting serious, mr. speaker. very serious. we can't keep spending money we just don't hav
who lost his life when his offspring helicopter tragically went down in afghanistan. and now his family and friends have found a way to honor his life and sacrifice through an annual event that is now used to raise funds for a college scholarship awarded to students at eden prairie high school where randy graduated in 1985. in addition to this scholarship, his run seeks to raise awareness of the contributions of our men and women in uniform that they make every day to keep america free. the major may not live us but his memory lives on through his family and friends and his community and through the scholarships through the local high school students that share his values. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: as congress struggles to come up with this deal over government debt, we all know that all we had
every month for military operations in afghanistan alone to prop up a corrupt and incompetent karzai government. how about ending wasteful subsidies to big agriculture companies? how about asking billionaire hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rates as their secretaries? the truth is that the best way to deal with our long-term fiscal situation is to grow our economy. that means creating jobs and putting people back to work. the last election i thought was about jobs. we haven't talked about jobs at all since the new republican majority became -- came to power. that means investing in things like education and infrastructure and green technology and medical research. that's the kind of economic future the american people deserve. the boehner default plan would take us exactly in the wrong direction and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: mr
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 82 (some duplicates have been removed)